MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145649636 · doi:10.1542/peds.111.5.969

Psychopathology and Social Competencies of Adolescents Who Were Extremely Low Birth Weight

2003· article· en· W2145649636 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsPsychopathologyMedicineAnxietyCohortDepression (economics)Attention deficit hyperactivity disorderMoodLow birth weightClinical psychologySocioeconomic statusCohort studyPsychiatryPopulationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that infants who were extremely low birth weight (ELBW) are particularly vulnerable to problems related to inattention and hyperactivity at school age. It is not known whether these problems persist to adolescence. OBJECTIVE: To explore and compare the levels of psychopathology in a regional cohort of ELBW infants and sociodemographically matched term controls as reported by teens and their parents. DESIGN/METHODS: Cross-sectional cohort study/geographically defined region. PARTICIPANTS: TEENS: ELBW 141/169 (83%) and control 122/145 (84%), aged 12 to 16 years. PARENTS: ELBW 143/169 (85%) and control 123/145 (85%). Both cohorts and their parents completed the Ontario Child Health Study-Revised questionnaire with 6 behavioral subsca1es: conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), overanxious, separation anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: By teen self-report, there were no significant differences between ELBW and control teens on any of the 6 subscale scores. However, parents of ELBW teens reported significantly higher scores than parents of control for depression and ADHD based on 2-way analysis of variance (group x gender). Comparison within teen/parent dyads showed that both cohorts of teens reported significantly higher scores than their parents. Multivariable analyses on behavioral subscale scores demonstrated a number of variables that were significant predictors by parent report: group (ELBW vs control), gender, family function, developmental quotient, maternal mood, and socioeconomic status; no predictors were significant by teen report. There were no statistically significant interaction effects for any of the models. These models explained a greater percent of the variance in behavioral scores for parents than for teens (12.5%-22.0% vs 3.4%-8.2%). Results were similar when teens with neurosensory impairment were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This study is unique in the inclusion of both parent and teen self-report of behaviors. Significant differences were apparent only by parent report for ADHD and depression among ELBW teens. Significant predictors of behavioral scores for parents include group, gender, family function, developmental quotient, maternal mood, and socioeconomic status.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it